Dismissed

Gaurav Bhal v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024SPLA/541/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal against single judge order dismissing writ petition challenging suspension order in disciplinary proceedings. High court found no palpable infirmity as charge sheet was duly served within statutory period and proceedings pending.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal dismissed; single judge order affirmed.

What the court decided

Gaurav Bhal vs State of Up and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113245-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 541 of 2024 Appellant :- Gaurav Bhal Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.

¶6

The present intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 02.05.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.6743 of 2024 (Gaurav Pal v. State of U.P. and others) wherein the appellant-petitioner had questioned the validity of the suspension order dated 13.04.2024 passed by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharanpur. For ready reference the order passed by learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-

¶7

"The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.4.2024 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharanpur putting the petitioner under suspension during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings instituted against him.

¶8

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the suspension order is without jurisdiction and violates the Proviso to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 in as much as the charges referred in the suspension order are not serious enough to invite any major penalty against the petitioner. It has been argued that for the aforesaid reason, the order dated 13.4.2024 is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Saxena vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2012 (6) ADJ 64 (NOC).

¶9

A perusal of the suspension order dated 13.4.2024 shows that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had violated the Government Servant Conduct Rules and was negligent in performance of his official duties and responsibilities.

¶10

The charges as narrated in the suspension order are not very specific. However, charges against a delinquent employee are stated not in the suspension order but in the chargesheet issued to the delinquent against whom the proceedings have been instituted. The charge-sheet has not been annexed with the writ petition and there is no averment in the writ petition that the charge-sheet has not yet been served on the petitioner. The nature of the charges can be assessed only after a perusal of the charge-sheet. The Rules, 1999 do not require that the suspension order shall narrate in detail the charges levelled against the delinquent and the evidence in support of the same. A perusal of the different documents annexed with the writ petition indicates that disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner for embezzlement. Embezzlement of public money is a serious charge to invite even dismissal from service. A suspension order is only required to state that the disciplinary proceedings are either contemplated or in process against the delinquent. The impugned order indicates that disciplinay proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner. The order dated 13.4.2024 does not violate the

¶11

Proviso to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

¶12

There is no jurisdictional error in the order dated 13.4.2024 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharanpur.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 13.4.2024 is, hereby, rejected.

¶14

However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner shall be concluded within a period of four months from today subject to co-operation by the petitioner.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is dismissed."

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner vehemently submitted that it had been pressed before the learned Single Judge that the suspension order is without jurisdiction and in violation of the proviso to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, inasmuch as, the charges referred in the suspension order were not so serious enough to invite any major punishment. He submits that even it had also been pressed that in view of the relevant government order the charge sheet has not been served till date even though 90 days have expired. He submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in law instead of setting aside the suspension order had directed the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.

¶17

In this backdrop, while entertaining the present appeal, we had accorded time to learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to apprise qua the status of on going departmental inquiry and we had asked whether the charge sheet has been served upon the appellant-petitioner. The said information was asked in the light of Government Order dated 15.11.1993 wherein it is submitted that the charge sheet is to be served upon the delinquent employee within three months and on the said date it was pressed that the charge sheet has not been served upon the appellantpetitioner, therefore, the entire proceeding deserves to be quashed.

¶18

Today, when the matter is taken up, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed detailed instructions and as per instructions it is reflected that the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner by post and even the same was also sent through whatsapp message. The same was well within three months as stipulated as per Government Order dated 15.11.1993.

¶19

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that the departmental inquiry is in progress and the charge sheet has already been submitted. There is no infirmity in the order passed by learned Single Judge, which warrant any interference in this matter.

¶20

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

¶21

In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶22

A copy of the instructions be given to the counsel for the appellant during course of the day.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 S.P.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaurav Bhal v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Gaurav Bhal v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Committee of Management Sri Surya Narayan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs Avneesh Kumar Rai and 2 Others

Chandi Prasad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tarun Bhatnagar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Ss Associates vs State of Up and 4 Others

Golden Food Products India vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ms Priya Jain vs State of U.P. and 3 Others